As observers point to the increasing disparity between rich and poor, between the lives of the hopeful and of the hopeless, those of us in higher education should wonder whether we contribute to the problem. A good education has always been the most widely acceptable answer to the problem of social class. Education, it is thought, enables citizens of all backgrounds to enjoy the fruits of an open society.
Unfortunately, the poor are increasingly left behind in our system of higher education. According to a study by the National Council of Educational Opportunity Associations, the proportion of students earning college degrees by age 24 from the richest quarter of the population has jumped from 31 percent to 80 percent since 1979. The rate among students from families in the poorest quarter of the population has stayed flat over the same period, at about 8 percent.
While a few elite schools like Dartmouth maintain need-blind admissions and provide substantial financial support for needful students, such private school programs can support only a tiny fraction of the need. The vast majority of students from our poorest families rely on public higher education. Here the trends are disturbing. Public support for higher education has fallen from 45 percent of higher education revenues in 1980 to 35 percent in 1996. At the same time, financial aid programs are shrinking. The maximum federal Pell Grant, designed to help the neediest students pay for expenses other than tuition, is $2,700, only half the level in 1980 after accounting for inflation.
The apparent change in social values is even more striking in light of other changes in state budgets. According to a study last year by the Justice Policy Institute, state government expenditures on prisons increased by 30 percent between 1987 and 1995, while spending on higher education fell by 18 percent, even though higher education enrollment increased by 22 percent. In New York, the governor has proposed increasing tuition at public universities by more than 10 percent while reducing assistance by $175 million.
The costs of financial aid have been reduced, in part, by requiring students to take on increasing debt as a portion of their assistance. A study concluded in October by the New England Education Loan Marketing Corporation found that the average total debt of students surveyed was $18,800, compared with $8,200 in 1991. In 1982, Federal grants made up 55 percent of student financial aid, while Federal loans made up 40 percent. By 1996, Federal grants made up 40 percent, and Federal loans made up 59 percent. Although one may well argue that students making a rational economic choice would borrow to invest in higher education, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are those most likely to feel short-term pressures and least able to make rational long-term choices.
A recent report to Congress from the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education cited a number of ways in which colleges and universities might control costs, but also noted that a major reason for the large increases in tuition charges during the past twenty years has been a decline in government funding for higher education. The Commission concludes that "government needs to invest in higher education as a public good." This "public good" is not entirely intangible, although intangible benefits are always undervalued. One study has found that the federal government recoups in future taxes on higher resulting incomes more than four times what it spends in student financial aid. Public investment in education makes economic sense.
The package of education supports proposed last spring by President Clinton is a good start at correcting the trend. The proposals include a modest increase in the Pell Grant maximum (although not enough to compensate for inflation over the past 15 years), an increase in funding for work-study jobs and a program of tax credits and deductions. Unfortunately, the majority of new funding comes in the form of tax incentives which benefit middle-income families while ignoring the poor.
More can be done at both the federal and state levels. Assistance for higher education is not a Great Society program destined to undermine values and productivity. On the contrary, investment in higher education is a necessary to build the values and productivity we need to maintain economic growth and fairly distribute its benefits.
What can you do? If you believe that the quality of our society depends on its justice, and that social justice requires at least a fair start for all children, speak up. Ask for more investment in education with the new budget surplus, not a reduction in taxes. This isn't a redistribution of income, it's a redistribution of opportunity.
You can find the addresses of your government representatives. Don't ignore your state representatives. These days, and on this issue, they have more power than those in Washington, and you have more influence on them. Ask them to increase their support for higher education and to guarantee educational opportunities for the poor.
